How Ruddock dared Europe to get tougher

July 21 2002By Paul Daley

When he braved the icy winds blowing off Lake Geneva last December and strode, calmly defiant, into the 50th anniversary meeting of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Philip Ruddock was the man of the moment.

His government had just been re-elected in a poll underscored by the potent issue of immigration, the election's emotive atmosphere dramatically amplified by the arrival in Australian waters of the Tampa.

When Minister Ruddock entered the chamber in Geneva, all lights and cameras were on him. For here was the man, as the European press had speculated, who could be booed and jeered out of the UNHCR's meeting because of Australia's tough stance on illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.

Perhaps the other delegates were disarmed by his moderate appearance and engaging manner. But more than likely, he whistled the tune that so many of them wanted to whistle but felt they could not.

Mr Ruddock opened his address with a strong criticism of the UNHCR, saying it needed to fundamentally rethink the way it approached the growing problem of refugees. He dared the delegates to ask themselves some "challenging questions" about how their countries dealt with asylum seekers and refugees and urged them to see the issues as a global, rather than parochial, problem.");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

While Mr Ruddock's speech won the predictable criticisms of human rights and refugee advocates, around the corridors of the UNHCR that day concessions were being made by dozens of delegates - particularly those from European Union countries - that the Australian was right. He set more minds racing when, at a later news conference, Mr Ruddock suggested that foreign aid could be linked to the ability of some countries to undertake responsible migration practices.

Six months later British Prime Minister Tony Blair took a similar proposal to a EU leaders' summit in Seville, Spain. While the other leaders rejected outright Mr Blair's proposals, they did agree that tough new measures were required to counter illegal immigrants across Europe.

The parallels between Australia's pronouncements and Britain's desires were obvious, even though Mr Blair denied that Australia had influenced his policy direction.

The flood of illegal migrants, mostly from the Middle East, to Britain is one of that country's biggest political and social dilemmas today. Mr Blair, a pragmatic member of British Labour's dominant right wing, would like to be even tougher on illegal migrants, hundreds of whom try, by various means, to cross the English Channel from France every night.

It is little wonder then that when two children walked into the British consulate in Melbourne last week and claimed asylum after escaping from a mandatory detention centre, it took Britain just eight hours to reject the application. Britain claimed that because Australia is a signatory to the 1951 UNHCR Convention, nobody there has a need to apply for asylum in Britain.

But beyond the rhetoric, the practicalities of the decision were simpler; if somebody was allowed to claim asylum in a foreign mission in a developed country such as Australia, every British mission in every Third World country across the globe would probably be inundated with asylum seekers.

"As a precedent I don't think it could have been allowed to stand," one EU diplomat said.

"And when all things are considered, Britain is the place whose detention policies most closely mirror those of Australia, which are recognised as the toughest in the free world."

Britain has recently overhauled its accommodation policies for asylum seekers. It is now mandatory for the 100,000-plus asylum seekers who come each year to live in special accommodation (they are free to leave during the day) if they want state support. But, unlike Australia, they are only compulsorily detained briefly on arrival and before deportation if their request for asylum has been turned down.

This "tough" policy pales when compared to Australia's policy of mandatory detention.

And that is why, say human rights advocates, Britain had a responsibility to extend asylum to the children, whose rights must be paramount under another 1989 UN covenant designed to protect the basic rights of children.